Re: Defending monosexuals (was: YAEPT: uu/ii )
|From:||Eugene Oh <un.doing@...>|
|Date:||Saturday, May 31, 2008, 8:14|
That email was more or less tongue-in-cheek. I thought it was quite a nifty
(hence my categorising it as "funny") way of Mark's to encompass both homo-
and heterosexuals with the word, punning on "bi-". In fact, I hadn't known
that hermaphrodites were once called "bisexuals". No offence/ignorance meant
Of course, we also vaguely know why "bisexual" won out over
"amphoterosexual" ultimately, given the number of syllables in each and the
general laziness of humans.
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 2:20 AM, R A Brown <ray@...> wrote:
> Eugene Oh wrote:
>> "Monosexuals" is a funny word!
> I do not see why "monosexual" is any more or less funny than "bisexual".
> The latter was, when I was young, and adjective meaning 'having both male &
> female sex organs', i.e. hermaphrodite. Over the last half century the word
> has shifted to mean 'attracted sexually to both sexes.'
> On the analogy of homosexual & heterosexual one would've expected
> 'attracted sexually to both sexes' to be *amphoterosexual, but it ain't; and
> shifts in meaning happen all the time in living languages,
> The imaginative boundaries for that are
>> practically non-existent.
> No more, meseems, that for 'bisexual' if one wants to be imaginative.
> Is a monosexual someone who...
>> (a) Has only one sex as opposed to the rest of the world, which has two or
> ?? Surely most people in this world have only one sex, either male or
> female. Hermaphrodites, i.e. bisexuals in the older meaning, are a minority.
> Most of us on this list, I guess, are monosexual, i.e. have only one sex, as
> opposed to bisexual in the sense of 'having both male & female sex organs'.
> (b) Has sex once?
> Yeah, yeah - kinda like a bisexual has sex only twice!
>> On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 12:21 AM, Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>
>> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Eugene Oh <un.doing@...> wrote:
>>>> I found that a tad offensive... but maybe it's just me.
>>> I'm sure Roger meant nothing by it, but yeah, one reads an implication
>>> that bisexuals are somehow more likely than monosexuals to carry
>>> viruses. Which is indeed an offensive assertion...
> Surely Mark's coinage of monosexual is quite logical in view of the
> contemporary meaning of 'bisexual'. It's also IMO very neat as it
> encompasses both heterosexual and homosexuals.
> FWIW my original remarks about bi and bii were simply making fun of the not
> uncommon pseudo-Latin plurals of _virus_, thus:
> bus ~ bi, on the analogy of virus ~ viri
> bus ~ bii, on the analogy of virus ~ virii
> Frustra fit per plura quod potest
> fieri per pauciora.
> [William of Ockham]